One needs to know that the IPCC predictions of the amount of global warming are predicated on a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, That is the basis of the IPCC predictions (as well as the predictions by Savante Arrhenius over 100 years ago) for average global temperature increase(s). In the IPCC case by 2100.
The base figure of about 270ppm needs to increase to 540ppm, according to the theory, before a 2-4C change occurs. As the CO2 concentration is no where near that level it would seem pretty obvious that one should look elsewhere for the causes of arctic ice melting, far more quickly than the anthropogenic GHG models and proponents suggest it should be.
The "culprits" may be natural causes as melts similar to the recent episode have occurred in recorded history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much lower than now.
The argument, despite the fall in average global temperatures more recently, is not so much about whether global warming and climate change is occurring, but rather what is the dominant driver. It should be pretty obvious that there are flaws, either, in the AGW theory or AWG models when looking at the evidence of the Arctic ice because the arithmetic just doesn't stack up. At least without localised qualifications which also must cast doubt on the effect of AGHG as the main culprit.
